Many years ago, I was invited to a Jewish bar mitzvah. Addressing the boy then entering adulthood, the rabbi suggested that he adopt one of the 10 commandments as a particular, personal rule. However he might lapse in other ways, he should vow never to break that particular commandment. The rabbi smiled benignly: "And if you want my opinion, I'd choose 'Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's cattle.' "

The new Christian right would not have approved. Over the past decade, "relativism" (when applied to morality) has become a dirty word. For the traditionalist, a personal morality that does not match a supposed biblical ideal is no better than total amorality.

From Wednesday, the new Civil Partnership Act will allow same-sex couples (including myself and my Muslim partner Majid) to legalise our relationships. As is the case with register-office heterosexual weddings, any ceremony must be secular. In our case, however, there will be no subsequent religious blessing. Chaplains and bishops can bless warships and armies, but thanks to pressure from "traditional" church members, the Church of England will not (officially) be blessing such commitments.

That hasn't stopped clerical friends from offering one "provided it's in your own home" or even in church "when it's quiet, say, four o'clock on a Saturday and provided there's no publicity". Thank you very much. On those terms, we'll manage without benefit of clergy. Or an imam.

We both believe in God. We believe it is his will that we are gay and that he wants us to profess our mutual, faithful love. If he is so opposed to a condition which, despite the views of fundamentalists, is either inherited or absorbed at an early age, then surely he could have bred it out of existence by now? So, although civil partnership is a significant gateway to the tax, pension and other benefits enjoyed by married couples, for us it is also a holy step. We shall become next of kin.

That matters when it comes to hospital visiting or even reporting one another's death. Very much more important to us is the fact that we are choosing to vow in public that we shall "cherish and tenderly care for, honour and encourage" each other. Then we shall exchange rings prior to legal registration.

One by-product of the Civil Partnership Act is this introduction of a new morality into gay and lesbian society, traditionally somewhat casual in its relationships - precisely because its relationships have hitherto been denied any social glue. Indeed, the act is dividing the gay community, and not only between those who resent its not being called "marriage" and those who do not wish to ape heterosexual ties so closely.

More interestingly, many gay and lesbian partners are hesitating to make a commitment that can be dissolved only in something very like a divorce court. The thought of joint bank accounts, legal rights to property now owned by one partner and, perhaps, monogamy comes hard to those for whom a long-term relationship means meeting on Friday night, moving in on Saturday morning, screaming at one another on Sunday night and arguing on Monday morning who will have custody of the newly acquired kitten.

Too often the church would seem to be on their side - as, for example, when it comes to selection for the priesthood. I think of two men living in the same city who simultaneously put themselves forward for ordination in the Anglican church. One professed to be celibate but was often seen in gay bars and clubs - and "not always with the same young companion". He was accepted. The second, who had been in a loyal, loving and very suburban gay relationship for nine years, was turned down.

To those for whom all homosexual expression is simply "disordered", the new morality being embraced by those registering their partnerships may indeed smack of relativism. Those of us in the gay community who give thanks for the new legislation and who value loyalty and love above secret promiscuity think otherwise.